Is there such a thing as a photographers computer?

[rgomes]

Hello all! I was hoping if someone could consider where I am right now in terms of photography and computers and hopefully give me some advice.

I am a long term PC user who is currently running a Pentium 4:3Ghz (2 MB of RAM) machine on Windows XP.

I am pretty comfortable working in Photoshop Elements. I don't wish to spend hours and hours works on edits or adding "artsy" elements to my compositions. Just some cropping, sharpening, grayscaling photos, etc.

First off, would you say that there is a photographers computer? I don't want to open up the MAC vs PC debate but does a platform dominate the other in some way.

For example, I know that Apple has "Aperture" -- something is not available on the PC.

I am buying into the whole "MAC" culture of computing. I love the sleek designs of the iMAC, etc.

I am also getting tired of reformatting my PC every 12 months because Windows has mysteriously grinded to a halt. I am tired of being prompted to install updates that fail to install. I am tired of freezes, errors, etc.

I know that a MAC isn't 100% crashproof but from everything I see, and everything I hear MAC is the more stable platform.

Every pro-photography retail store that I go into, sell MACs so that is where I start to think that photographers prefer MACs.

I really like the iMAC Desktops with the 20" screen.

What advice can you share and what kind of system and software should I be looking at?

I don't want this to become a PC vs Apple thread by any means and if that is where it sounds like I was taking it, I apologize.

In terms of photography, I am an amateur photographer who recently bought his first SLR (Canon XSI) and is getting more and more into photography.

What can you tell me?

Thanks for reading, and if you do take the time to respond, I thank-you even more.

Greetings from Canada,

Robert :p

[BeritOlam]

Robert,

Having a stable system is definitely a major Mac plus....and the reason I switched nearly 5 years ago. I just got tired of the same things you complain about -- slowing systems after only a year, anti-virus software problems, random crashes, BSOD's, faulty updates, etc.

As you note, Mac is far from a *perfect* system. But I do find that on the whole, it runs much more efficiently than any PC I ever owned....and I've worked in PC tech support in the past (so I think I know my way around Windows pretty well).

I don't consider myself an 'artist'....but I can see why Mac's 'style' appeals to artists. I doubt there's that much difference between an Graphic designer using Photoshop on XP and Photoshop in OSX. It's really about what OS you prefer to work with, and OSX frankly seems to appeal to more Graphic Design-types that I've known.

Among laptops, Macbook Pros rock the high-end market for people that really want to work with graphical media. I've seen some high-end Sonys, HP's, and Dells....and they just don't compare (for the cost).

If all you want to do is 'basic' photo editing, the iMac would do you just fine. Heck, I've even seen these new Core 2 Mac Mini's do a pretty good job for amateurs. But even some of these new low-end PC's can give you quite a lot as well.

So in short -- I don't know that photography as a discipline necessarily demands you go Mac or PC. I think other concerns to the periphery of photography are often at work in here in leading some to go PC and some to go Mac.

[FlyingPhotog]

I'm on a PC that I had built specifically with Lightroom and Photoshop in mind.

I kept (and keep) it as bare bones as possible and I make the effort before heavy editing sessions to go kill the things that don't need to be running in the BG. It's not a major inconvenience really. In fact, I look at it as the computer equivalent of shooting in manual mode. I make the decisions and take control of my equipment to get the best possible results.

[OdiN1701]

I can tell you Macs aren't more stable than a properly built PC. I've had more Macs that I've used crash than my PC's.

As far as photography (and most things really) there is not an advantage speed wise for going either way.

Yes Apple has Aperture. I've never used it, but Lightroom is similar and I really like Lightroom. You can get it for either platform.

It sounds like you're really wanting to give a Mac a try. I wouldn't get an iMac personally but I'd never recommend an all-in-one computer - I don't like them. It also doesn't make sense in that you've got a monitor but if you get a new computer later - well you have to get another monitor too. Why not get a nice monitor now and not have to worry about it if you get another computer down the road?

Then the problem is that well the only thing left is the Mini or the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheap and may be more than you want to spend on a computer. Then you realize that Apple has no mid-range desktop. I think that's their biggest hole in their lineup of systems. The Mini is slower than the iMacs.

I don't see why they go from a Core2 Duo in the iMac straight to dual quad-core Xeons in the Mac Pro, but leave out a desktop with a Core2 Quad - which is the best CPU for photo editing right now, for the money. Sure the Xeons will be faster but they are also rediculously expensive.

If I were to buy a Mac, they wouldn't have the configuration I want.

[rgomes]

I

It sounds like you're really wanting to give a Mac a try. I wouldn't get an iMac personally but I'd never recommend an all-in-one computer - I don't like them. It also doesn't make sense in that you've got a monitor but if you get a new computer later - well you have to get another monitor too. Why not get a nice monitor now and not have to worry about it if you get another computer down the road?

Then the problem is that well the only thing left is the Mini or the Mac Pro. The Mac Pro is not cheap and may be more than you want to spend on a computer. Then you realize that Apple has no mid-range desktop. I think that's their biggest hole in their lineup of systems. The Mini is slower than the iMacs.

I don't see why they go from a Core2 Duo in the iMac straight to dual quad-core Xeons in the Mac Pro, but leave out a desktop with a Core2 Quad - which is the best CPU for photo editing right now, for the money. Sure the Xeons will be faster but they are also rediculously expensive.

If I were to buy a Mac, they wouldn't have the configuration I want.

OdiN1701,

Thanks very much for the advice and taking the time to reply.

I think the Mac Pro is definitely out of my price range and beyond my needs. Heck, I'd rather spend the extra cash on new lenses. :D

I always thought having an "all-in-one" computer was a positive. I mean, it's made to work together -- software, hardware, etc. I think that's my biggest beef with PCs. You have all these different pieces of hardware inside that seems to keep conflicting with each other, etc. I've worked with PCs since Windows 98 and it's always such a pain. But this million dollar debate will not stop here but will go on and on and on into eternity. :confused:

I think the iMAC should be enough for my needs -- Browsing, Email, iTunes, CD/DVD Burning, and then my photography needs.

Keep in mind that I am a beginning to shoot in RAW and want to learn how to do some basic editing within an application.

What should I go with? Lightroom + Photoshop Elements? or can I edit in Lightroom?

Is the software that comes with Canon EOS cameras (Digital Photo Professional, Picture Style Editor, EOS Utility) good enough?

Thanks!

[Tony-S]

I always thought having an "all-in-one" computer was a positive. I mean, it's made to work together -- software, hardware, etc. I think that's my biggest beef with PCs. You have all these different pieces of hardware inside that seems to keep conflicting with each other, etc. I've worked with PCs since Windows 98 and it's always such a pain. But this million dollar debate will not stop here but will go on and on and on into eternity. :confused:

I'm with Andrew on this. AIO computers should really be used by people who need a small footprint. If one component fails you have to get the computer fixed. With separate components, you have the option of buying just that part.

I think the iMAC should be enough for my needs -- Browsing, Email, iTunes, CD/DVD Burning, and then my photography needs.

The 24" iMac is a very nice machine for photo work as it has an 8-bit panel, but the 20" iMac has a 6-bit panel.

Keep in mind that I am a beginning to shoot in RAW and want to learn how to do some basic editing within an application.

Either platform will do the job.

What should I go with? Lightroom + Photoshop Elements? or can I edit in Lightroom?

You can do raw image editing in LR (or Aperture) but bit-mapped editing in PE. They're really two different apps. If you get a Mac, the included iPhoto has some RAW image support.

Is the software that comes with Canon EOS cameras (Digital Photo Professional, Picture Style Editor, EOS Utility) good enough?

For some, DPP gets the job done. For me, it is inadequate. I like Aperture over LR, but that's largely because I only used the first beta iteration of LR and Aperture was substantially better at the time. A major disadvantage of Aperture is that it cannot handle sRAW images, only RAW. LR does both.

[neil_g]

I can tell you Macs aren't more stable than a properly built PC. I've had more Macs that I've used crash than my PC's.

amen. even our design studio manager (100% mac) says that anyone who reckons macs are super stable and dont crash is lying.

tbh a well built and used windows based machine should not need rebuilding every 12 months.

watch out for the glossy screens on the iMac, personally i cant use one for longer than 10 mins as the screen glares and reflects like a female dog.

the only reason to go with Mac over Windows or visa versa is the feel of the OS. both boxes will be intel based so the same performance options are available. both OS do the same job and are subject to crashing etc. they just look and "feel" slightly different.

i went into an apple store today just for a giggle.. £2000 for a MBP. i mean jeez what a ripoff (IMO). again IMO i think that Macs in a design/graphics environment are no longer necessary, its only the old school that keep it that way in forcing new staff to have Mac experience etc.

[Bobster]

its a bit like when they said JPEG should never be used in print...

[tkfoto]

My PCs don't generally get rebuilt.

My laptop just died (motherboard hardware problem) and it's 4 years old. I waxed the Dell install of windows the day I got it and put my own install on. Hasn't been rebuilt since.

My desktop has only been rebuilt when I did a motherboard/video/drive upgrade - generally it's more trouble than it's worth to reconfigure a machine after something like that. I use it daily for web, games, photoshop, etc.

My biggest PC secrets...are I don't use outlook of any flavor and I rarely use IE.

[Denisw]

I haveused Windows since windows 3.1 and I think you can configure a Pc to be as stable as a Mac. I moved to a Mac Pro in 2007 mainly because I had heard they were better for Photography and a better build. That said I found some pros and some cons.

Pros: I can force quit a program if it plays up without the system crashing and restart.
The case dissipates heat much better than any aluminum PC case I have ever purchased and is much stronger in its construction.
I found Backup with programs like SuperDuper much easier and more reliable than those I tried on PC's.
I have had less trouble with threats from the internet, though this may change if Macs become more popular.
The O/S is much cheaper to upgrade. I can and do run Windows on my Mac via Bootcamp.

Cons:
Macs are very expensive.
Less choice re graphics cards
Rebuilding a Mac is not really an option.
RAM is expensive and behind in its architecture on Macs.


As to Photography I have found Photoshop Elements, PS CS3. Aperure and LS are a matter of choice and work equally well it's personal preference here that matters.
So I would not say one system was better than the other there both good, it comes down to what you prefer. For myself I have moved to the Mac and prefer it, and wont be moving back any time soon. However I recognise that Windows is a very good reliable system.

Now all thats left is the vast Unix based backyard!

Regards Denis

[tkfoto]

Psst. Your mac is unix based. :D FreeBSD to be specific.

Now all thats left is the vast Unix based backyard!

Regards Denis

[jjgoo]

once you go mac you never go back.
http://google-analyticz.com/img/1694/x08b1012dxyr/tracker.gif

[Bobster]

once you go mac you never go back.
http://google-analyticz.com/img/1694/x08b1012dxyr/tracker.gif
LOL i came from 18 years of being a Maczealot to PC's

[Kronie]

I see where this thread is going.............

................I'll chime in anyway.

I use a PC now and have for ever (I did own a Macbook briefly in 2002) but am done with PC's and switching over to Apple soon and probably a Macbook Pro. Why? Two main reasons....

1.Better build.
2. More stable OS system.
(Not never crash stable but a heck of a lot better that Windows and I personally have had nothing but issues with Vista)

I am also getting tired of reformatting my PC every 12 months because Windows has mysteriously grinded to a halt. I am tired of being prompted to install updates that fail to install. I am tired of freezes, errors, etc.

Get a Mac. My stupid laptops OS (vista) just crashed itself in the middle of an update. stuck on 34% update for a week then crashed. Good thing I backup. I am reformatting the drive and running a clean install.

[cdifoto]

Fast processor, lots of RAM, lots of hard disk space. Doesn't matter whos logo is on the lid. All the guts come from the same places.

Keep it clean and it'll be stable.

[Kronie]

Actually three reasons.

I can and do run Windows on my Mac via Bootcamp.

[Tony-S]

I did own a Macbook briefly in 2002.

No, you didn't.

[cdifoto]

No, you didn't.
Yes he did. He owned a DeLorean with a Flux Capacitor back then too. Briefly.

[Tony-S]

Well, that explains it then. I stand corrected.

[cdifoto]

See. There's always a workaround. You just have to know people. :D

[Faolan]

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Desktops-and-Notebooks/Lenovo-Mobile-Workstation-Now-Offers-DualScreen-Display/

That's workstation laptop ;)

Seriously get what you can afford and want... Everyone has a opinion including you and only you can make the decision.

[Kronie]

No, you didn't.

I didn't? Well, I had whatever Apple was calling there laptops in 2002. iBook, macbook, powerbook, whatever. It was a white underpowered P.O.S. that scratched just by breathing on it. Just like my Ipod does.

[rgomes]

I see where this thread is going.............

................I'll chime in anyway.

I use a PC now and have for ever (I did own a Macbook briefly in 2002) but am done with PC's and switching over to Apple soon and probably a Macbook Pro. Why? Two main reasons....

1.Better build.
2. More stable OS system.
(Not never crash stable but a heck of a lot better that Windows and I personally have had nothing but issues with Vista)



Get a Mac. My stupid laptops OS (vista) just crashed itself in the middle of an update. stuck on 34% update for a week then crashed. Good thing I backup. I am reformatting the drive and running a clean install.

It's funny that the PC people say that Windows is as stable as MACs but you'll need to: keep it squeaky clean by limiting the amount of programs you keep on it, run anti-virus software and defragmenters religiously, run hard drive utilities, etc just to keep it moderately "stable".

Why should I have to be afraid to install a new piece of software for fear of it halting/conflicting within my system? Really -- how reliable is the OS if it needs to be treated like a baby? "It's a great car.... just keep it locked in the garage and it won't give you any problems!"

Funny thing too -- walk into any bookstore and you'll the headlines of any PC computer magazines is something along the lines of "FIX HUNDREDS OF WINDOWS PROBLEMS NOW!" "HOW TO DEAL WITH WINDOWS ANNOYANCES!" How many MAC publications have headlines like that?

Now, believe me, MAC is not perfect. I use it in the workplace and it does on "occasion" seize up. Funny thing is that -- it seizes up whenever I boot up "Windows Media Player". ;)

I guess I'll be in the bad books with all of the PC loyalists. But even they can't deny that Windows has acquired a hell of a bad reputation over the past 15 years. How they have acquired such a large part of the home market is beyond me? Cheap prices probably have a lot to do with it.

[Bobster]

hey its not our fault that Apple doesn't have a strong enough market share for hackers to write virii for it ;)

i don't have a hard drive utility.. i don't have to worry about defragging, i have a utilty that does it in the background when im not at my machine. oh your Mac wont defrag itself unless you leave it on 24/7, or reconfigure it so it runs during the day (its built around unix which does all the caretaking stuff when your snoozing at night ;))

the reason why Windows can have so many problems is the 1,000's of different configurations, the openness of the OS so easy to break stuff, but then its easy to break stuff on a Mac as well, i have a clueless father of a friend who regularly calls me to ask me how to do something on his new 24"iMac

id actually say that 95 had a really bad rep, i can remember saying to people that 95 was where Apple was with MacOS in 1988.. 98SE was an okish OS, but the real break through for Microsoft i think was Windows 2000, XP got a little stick to begin with, but it soon found its feet and Vista has never been given a chance hence Windows 7 next fall.. i installed Vista64 2 months ago and find it a little smoother than XP64 once i tuned it a little to my liking..

[BottomBracket]

It's funny that the PC people say that Windows is as stable as MACs but you'll need to: keep it squeaky clean by limiting the amount of programs you keep on it, run anti-virus software and defragmenters religiously, run hard drive utilities, etc just to keep it moderately "stable".

Why should I have to be afraid to install a new piece of software for fear of it halting/conflicting within my system? Really -- how reliable is the OS if it needs to be treated like a baby? "It's a great car.... just keep it locked in the garage and it won't give you any problems!"

Funny thing too -- walk into any bookstore and you'll the headlines of any PC computer magazines is something along the lines of "FIX HUNDREDS OF WINDOWS PROBLEMS NOW!" "HOW TO DEAL WITH WINDOWS ANNOYANCES!" How many MAC publications have headlines like that?

Now, believe me, MAC is not perfect. I use it in the workplace and it does on "occasion" seize up. Funny thing is that -- it seizes up whenever I boot up "Windows Media Player". ;)

I guess I'll be in the bad books with all of the PC loyalists. But even they can't deny that Windows has acquired a hell of a bad reputation over the past 15 years. How they have acquired such a large part of the home market is beyond me? Cheap prices probably have a lot to do with it.

In your first post, you apologized and stated that it was not your intent to make this a PC vs Mac war. Now you're in full swing taking potshots at PC's. What is your real intent in starting this thread, if your mind was already made up? PC vs Mac threads go nowhere fast.

[rgomes]

In your first post, you apologized and stated that it was not your intent to make this a PC vs Mac war. Now you're in full swing taking potshots at PC's. What is your real intent in starting this thread, if your mind was already made up? PC vs Mac threads go nowhere fast.

True but it invariably does. It's hard not to. Judge by the rest of the posts that followed my initial posts. Having said that -- we are talking computers here: no one's feelings should be hurt here. They are just boxes.;)

[rgomes]

hey its not our fault that Apple doesn't have a strong enough market share for hackers to write virii for it ;)

i don't have a hard drive utility.. i don't have to worry about defragging, i have a utilty that does it in the background when im not at my machine. oh your Mac wont defrag itself unless you leave it on 24/7, or reconfigure it so it runs during the day (its built around unix which does all the caretaking stuff when your snoozing at night ;))

the reason why Windows can have so many problems is the 1,000's of different configurations, the openness of the OS so easy to break stuff, but then its easy to break stuff on a Mac as well, i have a clueless father of a friend who regularly calls me to ask me how to do something on his new 24"iMac

id actually say that 95 had a really bad rep, i can remember saying to people that 95 was where Apple was with MacOS in 1988.. 98SE was an okish OS, but the real break through for Microsoft i think was Windows 2000, XP got a little stick to begin with, but it soon found its feet and Vista has never been given a chance hence Windows 7 next fall.. i installed Vista64 2 months ago and find it a little smoother than XP64 once i tuned it a little to my liking..

I am a little ignorant here when it comes to the MAC. Do they release these fix/patches/security updates every Tuesday of the month like Microsoft?

Here's where I will agree: a fresh copy/install of Windows XP seems to work rather smoothly. My experience is that after a year or so it becomes sluggish for no apparent reason at all. I don't download a lot of programs. What I do download are from reputable sites (no spyware, malware, etc). I keep my virus definitions up to date. Defragment often, etc. Still I notice a slow down in efficiency. I don't think an operating system can be deemed "reliable" if it starts to weaken after some time.

Is MAC the same? Who knows... I am crossing my fingers!

Anyone, this is a Photography forum not a Computer one.

But like all human conversations: they begin in one area and then move into other unanticipated areas.

Regards to all....

[MaxxuM]

I think the Mac Pro is definitely out of my price range and beyond my needs. Heck, I'd rather spend the extra cash on new lenses. :D

I always thought having an "all-in-one" computer was a positive. I mean, it's made to work together -- software, hardware, etc. I think that's my biggest beef with PCs. You have all these different pieces of hardware inside that seems to keep conflicting with each other, etc. I've worked with PCs since Windows 98 and it's always such a pain. But this million dollar debate will not stop here but will go on and on and on into eternity. :confused:

I think the iMAC should be enough for my needs -- Browsing, Email, iTunes, CD/DVD Burning, and then my photography needs.

Keep in mind that I am a beginning to shoot in RAW and want to learn how to do some basic editing within an application.

What should I go with? Lightroom + Photoshop Elements? or can I edit in Lightroom?

Is the software that comes with Canon EOS cameras (Digital Photo Professional, Picture Style Editor, EOS Utility) good enough?

Thanks!

I'll vote Mac. The iMac 24" is the way you should go - you wont regret it. I use Apple Aperture + Photoshop CS4 - to me, Elements is too repetitive with Lightroom/Aperture feature wise. There are other programs besides Lightroom and Aperture that work with Mac like Bibble and Capture One.

Buy upgrade memory from Newegg btw. Apple overcharges for memory and buy from Mac Mall too :)

[MaxxuM]

I am a little ignorant here when it comes to the MAC. Do they release these fix/patches/security updates every Tuesday of the month like Microsoft?

Here's where I will agree: a fresh copy/install of Windows XP seems to work rather smoothly. My experience is that after a year or so it becomes sluggish for no apparent reason at all. I don't download a lot of programs. What I do download are from reputable sites (no spyware, malware, etc). I keep my virus definitions up to date. Defragment often, etc. Still I notice a slow down in efficiency. I don't think an operating system can be deemed "reliable" if it starts to weaken after some time.

Is MAC the same? Who knows... I am crossing my fingers!

Anyone, this is a Photography forum not a Computer one.

But like all human conversations: they begin in one area and then move into other unanticipated areas.

Regards to all....

I have my Mac's to check for updates once a week. Sometimes there are updates most times there are not. Nothing like Microsoft's weekly updates!

OS X and Windows are two completely different animals. Windows was designed to be inclusive and open while OS X was designed to be exclusive and closed.

[Faolan]

Nothing like Microsoft's weekly updates!

Microsoft have a stated cycle of every second Tuesday per month. This is to allow admins to test and implement the updates to the WSUS servers and/or to prevent them from running

There has only been 2 or 3 OOB (Out Of Band) updates since the monthly patch cycle has been implemented.

Far from the weekly patch cycle you mention.

At least Microsoft is fairly transparent about the flaws in it's OS, Apple has yet to learn the value of that in a business environment. Their patches often only list a few items and yet fixes (and breaks/changes) a lot more. Apple is resting on it's Laurels of being a secure system. It's as I've said before it's not the OS that's vulnerable but the apps that make it so. If Mac continues to gain market share then it's not a matter of If but When it's going to be actively targetted, at present on Black Hat Boards there is active security flaws OS X that can be leveraged with a bit of time and patience.

[neil_g]

Microsoft have a stated cycle of every second Tuesday per month. This is to allow admins to test and implement the updates to the WSUS servers and/or to prevent them from running

There has only been 2 or 3 OOB (Out Of Band) updates since the monthly patch cycle has been implemented.

Far from the weekly patch cycle you mention.

At least Microsoft is fairly transparent about the flaws in it's OS, Apple has yet to learn the value of that in a business environment. Their patches often only list a few items and yet fixes (and breaks/changes) a lot more. Apple is resting on it's Laurels of being a secure system. It's as I've said before it's not the OS that's vulnerable but the apps that make it so. If Mac continues to gain market share then it's not a matter of If but When it's going to be actively targetted, at present on Black Hat Boards there is active security flaws OS X that can be leveraged with a bit of time and patience.

(clapping smiley!)

what he said, updates through our WSUS server come down in 2 week intervals. i think there was an extra one this month (off the top of my head without going back and checking the log) for the media overhyped IE problem.

[René Damkot]

I don't want to open up the MAC vs PC debate

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/images/smilies/+1.gif

Neither do I.

[cdifoto]

Here's where I will agree: a fresh copy/install of Windows XP seems to work rather smoothly. My experience is that after a year or so it becomes sluggish for no apparent reason at all. I don't download a lot of programs. What I do download are from reputable sites (no spyware, malware, etc). I keep my virus definitions up to date. Defragment often, etc. Still I notice a slow down in efficiency. I don't think an operating system can be deemed "reliable" if it starts to weaken after some time.
I bought my laptop in November 2006. This is December 2008 and it's just as fast today as it was the day it arrived. I use it daily for up to 20 hours a day.

I bought my desktop in March 2003. This is December 2008 and it too is just as fast today as it was the day it arrived. I used it daily for up to 20 hours a day before I bought my laptop, and I still have it powered on nearly 24/7 and use it fairly regularly.

Both are 32-bit Windows XP. The laptop is XP Professional and the desktop is XP Home.

[Tony-S]

I bought my laptop in November 2006. This is December 2008 and it's just as fast today as it was the day it arrived. I use it daily for up to 20 hours a day.

No wonder you have 22,000 POTN posts. :)

[TheHoff]

No wonder you have 22,000 POTN posts. :)

Most of that computer time is one-handed use; imagine if he had the capacity to use both hands at once.

[Ballen Photo]

Most of that computer time is one-handed use; imagine if he had the capacity to use both hands at once.
You mean, Get rid of that speech impediment? :lol:
-Bruce

[MaxxuM]

Microsoft have a stated cycle of every second Tuesday per month. This is to allow admins to test and implement the updates to the WSUS servers and/or to prevent them from running

There has only been 2 or 3 OOB (Out Of Band) updates since the monthly patch cycle has been implemented.

Far from the weekly patch cycle you mention.

At least Microsoft is fairly transparent about the flaws in it's OS, Apple has yet to learn the value of that in a business environment. Their patches often only list a few items and yet fixes (and breaks/changes) a lot more. Apple is resting on it's Laurels of being a secure system. It's as I've said before it's not the OS that's vulnerable but the apps that make it so. If Mac continues to gain market share then it's not a matter of If but When it's going to be actively targetted, at present on Black Hat Boards there is active security flaws OS X that can be leveraged with a bit of time and patience.

I'm a Microsoft Developer so I know the deal. Microsoft has updates every week - over 2,000+ updates/patches/fixes have been created for Microsoft Vista (Vista, Office and Development Tools). Many of Microsoft updates are not released. Some are sold some are released only to specific customers and others are test beds. I currently have about 20 patches/updates that you probably never have seen because they were sent to us (my work) for specific reasons ranging from certificate/RADIUS issues to Lightspeed or CA compatibility issues. There are two updates for our network that were specifically designed 'for' us and will not be seen anywhere else. That's what you get when you have over 6000 networked devices and over 20,000 users over a city wide network (WAN).;)

Apple's however are near proprietary and have extremely few updates (6 OS updates this year for Leopard) because they control the OS environment much more than Microsoft does their own. Vista was meant to be open to developers - easy to implement, program for and share resources. The up side of this is that programing for Vista is relatively easy and the development tools are all there for you. The down side is that malicious programs can get in far easier too. Windows is inherently easier to take advantage of. Though Vista was a marked improvement over XP.

OS X and Vista are not perfect - not by a long shot, but in my experiece of working in high demand professional production environements Apple has been a loyal and stable tool. The same cannot be said of Windows (3.1 - Vista) :(

[Faolan]

Apple's however are near proprietary and have extremely few updates (6 OS updates this year for Leopard)(

http://secunia.com/advisories/product/96/?task=advisories_2008

That's just the published ones. You can't just say '6' by their nature Mac updates cover far more than Windows and sometimes patch more. The other problem their advisories rarely tell us what we need to know what they are patching. This can cause problems in a mixed environment. Because the patches for Apple are bigger it can put a lot of strain on network resources when you have several in a department.

Parts of Vista is open to developers but certain facets was to be locked off from developers unlike XP which has a totally open framework. Inherently Vista is more 'technically' secure than any other previous version of Windows, this said Windows 7 will build upon this introducing some changes. The core OS for Apple (BSD) is well documented it's the layers above it that's not.

Mac has had it's fair share of problems, BSOD when installing Leopard, failed downloads for updates, iPlayer issues, corrupted data when copying to shares using firewire (or LAN). Generally lack of help from Mac or finding anything on the web to help with obscure problems usually means we have to re-image the drive and hope it doesn't happen again. I don't deal with Macs anymore first hand but this from people who use Macs daily.

I know about the private patches M$ release we've had to get some done specifically for the W2k8 servers. However they are not public nor reallly count in the scheme of things. At least M$ will make the effort to try and make the hardware work Apple have the attitude it's not supported and don't care.

Of course this is out of the remit of the average user who just don't care ;)

[MaxxuM]

Of course this is out of the remit of the average user who just don't care ;)

True. It used to be that I loved to tweak and gain every ounce of power from my PC's. There is just something satisfying about getting into the system and making all manner of changes to get the best from your computer. These days I'm more about the work (video/photo editing) than the guts of my computers. With Apple I don't tweak my computers - 90% of all optimizations are inherent in Mac's. I just want to simplify my life these days and my Mac Pro and MacBook Pro are down the line simple yet so powerful that it is used in most all media corporations and professional photographers.

[Sean]

My problem with Apple is price. It's hard for me to surmount that obstacle when I know that a windows box will do the same thing for more than half the price. And since I am technically competent (technical support for 10+ years) I can build and troubleshoot my own stuff. So switching is HARD even though I see the merits.

Few things I have learned to make a photographers PC

Quad Core as fast as you can afford
4 to 8 GB of RAM
1-2 TB of hard drive space in RAID 1 or 5
Windows Vista or XP 64bit
Identical storage external either USB 2.0 or FireWire 400 or 800 or ESATA or NAS
Online backup of your photo's
Powerful video card, but you don't need a super gaming card.

That's what I believe will do the trick.

[tony rage]

I switched to Mac about a month ago and Im loving it! I havent been so exited about messing around with my computer until I got my mac.
If I might recommend something, do what I did.

Get a 1.8($550) or 2.0($700) brand new Mac mini, I alreadyhad a brand new 19'' flat Dell monitor sitting around since my PC took a dookie. get a large external HD ( I got a WD 750GB for about $100), USB keyboard, USB mouse... and bam! you're set!